Saturday, August 1, 2009

The person who posted this video on YouTube also wrote this about it: "Since the Harvard professor Gates says all black people are vulnerable in America, let's have some fun with that!"

The video is an attempt at humor, but I think it's humor with a point -- that is, satire. But then, I'm not quite sure what the point is.

What do you think?

For those who can't watch it, the video begins with a shot of Professor Gates explaining that his arrest made him realize how "vulnerable" all black and poor people are to "capricious forces like rogue policemen." Words are then superimposed on a freeze-frame of Gates that say, "Speak for yourself, Sissy . . . "

The rest of the video portrays a black man getting wired up for sound in front of a green screen by a white man. The black man gets nervous because he fears that the microphone wire will "shoot white people's instructions up my spine and take over my brain." He runs away and into a corporate setting full of white people, all of whom frighten him more and more. Especially when they turn into zombies, who say they want his "sense of rhythm," his "natural athletic ability," and so on. At the end of the video, the black man is found crouching and crying in a basement by another black man, who asks him what's wrong. He raises his head to choke out an explanation: "I see white people!"

Again, I don't think this video is just an attempt to "have some fun" with Professor Gates' point that black people (what happened to the "poor" people in his comment?) are "vulnerable." It's an effort to satirize that point, and to say that those who make it are paranoid "sissies." They must be sissies, you see, because white people (what happened to the "rogue policemen" in Gates' comment?) don't have anything against black people. I mean, come on, we're not like, freakin' flesh-eating zombies or something! Only a sissie would play the race card by claiming that in this post-racial society, things are any different for black people than they are for white people. Get real, bro!

By the way, this "humor" was produced by people working for an outfit with an explicitly political agenda -- Pajamas Media Television. This is the same crew that recently published an article by Roger L. Simon entitled "Gates and Obama’s nostalgia for racism." Simon's point is very similar to the one made by Pajamas Media Televsion.

Simon claims that all countries were racist in the past, including the U.S. However, because of its legacy of slavery, the U.S. has tried especially hard to eradicate racism, and it has succeeded. Nevertheless, some have found it difficult to accept this new reality:

. . . when the rules change, when values change, not everyone can adjust with it — not only the racist, but also those who depended on being victims of racism. For all his brilliance, Henry Lewis Gates is evidently such a man. Otherwise, why cry out about being victimized as a “black man in America” before there is any evidence that that is the case?

This is nostalgia for racism and our president probably suffers from it as well, although perhaps to a lesser degree, considering he clearly plunged into the fray without thinking [by saying that the Cambridge police acted "stupidly"]. The problem is that this nostalgia not only blames people unfairly, it also increases the very thing it pretends to oppose — racism itself. The unfair or inaccurate imputation of racism promotes racism.

This is, I think, a current, widespread conservative strategy for opposing a party that now has a black president. It has roots in real racism -- in common, long-standing white perceptions that black people are professional victimologists who can't think straight because they're so wrapped up in the past, and so on -- but I think there's something new about how this strategy is now playing out. In fact, conservatives seem to feel that they have to revamp their racial politics, because they're now faced with a black president.

Since we live in a society and power structure that is still, in an unspoken way, framed by white perceptions and attitudes, Barack Obama has continually backed away from contentious racial issues. I think he did so again in the Gates case, after initially pointing out, accurately, that racial profiling is still a problem, and I think he generally does so as a political necessity. And yet, conservatives keep stalking him with a giant tar brush, all the while claiming that he's the real racist.

The strategy now seems to be to convince America at large that racism is a thing of the past (and indeed, many white people do already believe that, and a few non-white people too), and that anyone who points to racism, of any sort at all, is therefore a paranoid race hustler. And more than that, not only are their claims that racism still matters unfounded -- to "cry racism" is itself racist.

I think this is what conservative crybaby Glenn Beck is basically up to, when he claims that Barack Obama is a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred" for white people.

This is all sick, twisted stuff -- to not only deny a vast amount of evidence that racism still exists (let alone that it's a major problem), but then to add that those who point out that it does exist, and that it is a major problem, are doing so because they're nostalgic for the good old days of Jim Crow and slavery. And that they themselves are the "real racists."

I'm rarely speechless, but these claims, and the respectful attention they're given by the corporate media, are all just . . . wow.

Republicans are widely understood to be a largely white political party full of people who have little genuine interest in embracing people of color, the people that most Republicans suspect (sometimes unconsciously) are basically inferior, in a lot of ways.

Is this strategy -- of denying racial realities and trying to reverse things by affixing the label of "racist!" onto their opposition instead -- really going to work for them?

Only those who opt to believe that America is not racist have belief in the term "post-racial". The election of a Black POTUS didn't signal to me that racism had ended. It indicated to me that the theory of multi-culturism has finally began to grow outward in the society. I don't believe Obama's race was the sole factor in the public eye. His education, age and other factors have to play into his win.

Barack is just as much racially profiled as any other Black person.I don't consider racial profiling to be limited just to law enforcement. It is prevelent throughout our society.

He could be the vicitim of a drive by. Or he could be pulled over by the police on any given day just because he was Black and male. He knows this to be true. And if he wasn't a high profile individual, Barack would be open to receive the same discriminatory treatment as any other person of color.

It is funny that many white people think that we are paranoid. I happen to think the same about many white people that I interact with or meet. For reasons that are often without merit.

I'm a Baby Boomer. I still hear from perceptions about Black people that have roots back in the days of the riots. We are still just waiting for that moment to do whatever to them as payback for mistreatment of our ancestors. When I have pointed out that not every Black person in America has ancestors who were slaves-it throws them off balance. But, history does denote that even during that era of America history, there were free Black people who never had roots in the institution.

My dad is a retired law enforcement officer. He often talked about the different codes of conduct for officers towards different races of people. My brother is in law enforcement and the practice is still being used. So we are not paranoid. I have had white male cops stop me for just taking a walk in my neighborhood. Their attitude was so nasty. The officer acted like I was working the block. Even though I was just two blocks away from my home. I was walking to the store. I wasn't doing anything illegal. They just decided to stop me because I was out and about. They didn't even check my identification. So what should I think.

Anyone who declares we have a nostaligic wish for racism is an idiot. If you are not a member of the group who is receiving the full brunt of racism-it is easy to say something like that. But, this overt surge of racism that has been occurring since the Obama Administration has taken over is not just a select few in our society. It is the way that I see the fear of a Black Planet being expressed.

This observation I always find strange given our country's brief history with race relations:

"Republicans are widely understood to be a largely white political party full of people who have little genuine interest in embracing people of color, the people that most Republicans suspect (sometimes unconsciously) are basically inferior, in a lot of ways."

"Widely understood to be" is not the same as being. The Republican Party is the only single issue party in the history of the US to rise to prominence and that single issue was to prevent the spread of slavery into Kansas.

It was a Democrat who launched the filibuster in the Senate to attempt to stop the Civil Rights Bill Kennedy proposed, saying "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."

And the "Big Tent" which includes all men, regardless of race, was introduced into the Republican Party's first party platform.

The first KKK was aimed at suppressing not only African Americans, but Republican votes and tried to run Republicans out of office.

Historian Elaine Franz Parsons commented:

"Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. Indeed, all they had in common, besides being overwhelmingly white, southern, and Democratic, was that they called themselves, or were called, Klansmen."

Overwhelmingly white, southern and Democratic.

How the Republican Party is now "widely understood to be" something that it isn't and never was I find intriguing.

Dana, your argument is invalid. The Republican Party of the Reconstruction era is not the Republican Party of today, as is the Democratic Party.

The Republican Party has regressed to a single issue and single race (primarily) party. While the Democratic Party has its issues (which I am a member of), it has progressed to more likely include various aspects of American life.

Dana, it is clear you're reading your history books but I can tell you still have more reading to do. The Republican party of today shares little more than a name with the party you're writing about. When the Democrats started to make at least superficial overtures to non-whites and their interests, those "overwhelmingly white, southern and Democratic" folks who opposed the changes found a warm welcome with today's Republicans and remain there today.

Getting back on topic. "Is this strategy -- of denying racial realities and trying to reverse things by affixing the label of "racist!" onto their opposition instead -- really going to work for them?"

It's already working. I see the "you're racist for pointing out racism" argument on just about any article that touches on the subject from comments at the NYT, to digg.com to personal blogs. Not only is it Orwellian in its bizarreness, I find it difficult to argue against b/c arguments are won on reason and these people deliberately adopt a non-rational position.

I actually don't know what to say. Without even stopping to consider looking at facts, white people decide we're all paranoid?

There's a great big disconnect between one group of people and reality, and that's group of people aren't black folks. As msladydeborah indicates with her anecdoctal evidence, empirical studies indicate the blacks and latino/as are routinely stopped and searched for no reason, and at a much higher rate than whites. Studies show if anyone's paranoid, it's white people - piggybacking off mld again, it's white people who, in a study, perceive blacks as overly-aggressive and prone to criminality.

Also, I skimmed through the article where Gates is described as "racism-nostalgic" - even though Gates is conservative on racial issues, and is one of those who believes racism isn't doesn't play that strong of a role anymore.

But it seems as a collective, white people don't really care much for facts. They don't care about all the empirical evidence and studies detailing wide-spread racial profiling. They don't care the Crowley's report was false. They don't care that Gates is in no way even a little bit connected to racial activism. They don't care that Gates has two daughters by his white ex-wife or that Obama is biracial. And they certainly don't seem to care about all the studies and research detailing racism and white privilege. Even when you get them to admit that, for example, they think blacks are more agressive than whites, or lazier, they refuse to consider the real-life implications of their beliefs.

And here's what seals the deal for me. This is what makes me think white people as a collective are mentally unstable - despite not being the ones who'd experience racism, they purport to tell those of us who do that it doesn't exist.

I have had white male cops stop me for just taking... I have had white male cops stop me for just taking a walk in my neighborhood. Their attitude was so nasty. The officer acted like I was working the block. Even though I was just two blocks away from my home. I was walking to the store. I wasn't doing anything illegal. They just decided to stop me because I was out and about. They didn't even check my identification. So what should I think.

***********************************

This is what White people never see. Experiences like this--that we are paranoid, that the cop was doing his job. Would he have ever stopped a White woman who was just walking her block--NO. Would he had assumed that she was a working girl---NO. Most likely some light flirting, solicitious regard for her safety-maybe even an attempt at a galant escort home. Black women of course are all drug addicts and ho's.

These assumptions are things that White people never had to worry about, therefore it doesn't exist. Thus the dialogue on race will always be met with condescenion and/or Blacks having to confront being called crazy, emotional, unbalanced, illogical. Funny how those adjective haven't died since Whites discovered Black people in Africa. When it comes down to it--they only see Black people as half formed savages--not even remotely human.

This notion that black people are super-touchy "victimologists" who see racism everywhere drives me crazy. "Crying racism" is actively, and very effectively, socially discouraged. Do people not realize this? (I mean, c'mon: "crying" racism? Okay. We get it.) Often, the person saying, "Dude. Not cool." has already desperately tried to find some way to excuse the offense before realizing he can't, and has to, for the sake of dignity, Say Something. Blatant racism is an "aww man" moment, as in: "Aww, man. [sigh] Now I kind of have to say something."

The you-people-love-to-be-victims notion itself reduces one's willingness to go there.* It rarely crosses my mind to think "I was just a victim of racism"— I give a lot of leeway, because I don't want to have to think it— and if and when I do, I quickly downplay it to myself. It goes something like, "Wait a second. Was that...? ...Nah. Nah, it couldn't be," and then I promptly try to forget about it. I'm well conditioned to second-guess myself on that. And for the most part, I do forget about it, unless I'm pressed to recall. I'm certainly not trying to put racism notches on my belt. I'd rather accept that in second-guessing myself, I've probably excused some actual racism— that apartment I was denied, that receptionist who was egregiously rude, whatever.

____*It reminds me of the women-constantly-cry-rape meme, the fear of which no doubt helps some rapists go not just unpunished, but unaccused— "Was that...? ...Nah. Nah, it couldn't be." It's protective. Maybe that's the point. Either way, it works.

Never underestimate the power of racist propaganda. Of course it works, the objective is simple "muddy the water" in laypersons terms deliberately distort issues to make them less clear and introduce a sense of self-doubt and personal confusion.

These are all true and tried methodologies which have great appeal to lazy thinkers, the simply ignorant and are typically employed by political operatives.

The overall objective of this strategy can be synthesized into the phrase "equal time for lies" that is, this absurd notion that there must be an equal opposite to every situation regardless of context.

The only way people can create this opposite is through context shifting and upside down logic and reasoning.

Case-n-point:

(1) Most thinking people know that the US is 70% white and the implication of that fact means that there are many more whites who have little to no direct experiences with POC than the other way around.

(2) Most reasonably educated people know that this country has had a violent history towards POC one that was practiced openly up until less 50 years ago. One of the most important changes that came out of the Civil Rights movement and this progression towards a more inclusive society, is the notion of equal protection under the law.While far from perfect, it has pretty much stopped people who would be violent and more open about their disdain for POC from practicing their craft openly and with impunity.

Most people that know the drill realize that if you took away the legal protections large segments of the this country including millions of individuals would revert back to the Jim Crow period of open hostility.

The only people that would be shocked by this development would be people who talk a lot but are completely ignorant of the history of the country and POC who are not old-enough to remember when whites didn't feel it necessary to play mickey-mouse games when it came to expressing their racist disdain for POC with no pretense of objectivity.

(3) Anyone who has an IQ higher than his or her body temperature knows or should know that those people and their children who have been indoctrinated with this idea of white supremacy are still around. More importantly, the changes in the laws and what is considered acceptable social behavior have forced the racists to adapt to a new reality to operate more covertly.

Therefore, the dynamics for the racist and his/her actions towards POC is very similar to those used by a child molester i.e. the children experience unspeakable horrors at the hands of a despicable and fundamentally dishonest and deranged individual.

Exposing the perpetrator is made difficult or virtually impossible due to his/her standing among peers, associates and friends who are willing to give him/her the benefit of doubt. Exposure is further complicated by the perpetrator to prejudice would be casual and sympathetic individuals against the claims made by the victims of his/her abuse.

Therefore, as long as racist propaganda remains unchallenged (unmasked) it will become easier and easier for people to accept equal time for lies.

If it's racist for David Arquette to say, "SOME Latina women are crazy," What is it when a person of color says, "White people as a collective are mentally unstable" I know it's not racist, but what is it?

If it's racist for David Arquette to say, "SOME Latina women are crazy," What is it when a person of color says, "White people as a collective are mentally unstable" I know it's not racist, but what is it?

I just had a quick scan through this post as I am on my way out, and spotted the bit about Obama having a deep seated hatred for White people. How can Obama, who happens to be mixed have hatred of White people when he is half White? I really don't get that.

Racial profiling still exists and the police/prison system is probably one of the best examples of institutional racism in modern America.

However the Gates case is not an example of racial profiling. There was not an APB out about a burglar and the cops didn't start rounding up random black men (this time at least). Instead, they responded to the scene of the potential crime and questioned the only man there.

As for Gates being arrested for being black, that's not clear. It could be his race made Crowley treat him more aggressively and invite the "don't you know who I am approach?" but all I can say is as a white man, I would never talk to any police officer the way Gates did. I'm sure I would have been arrested. It's terrible that's true but there's no necessary racial component. The fact that so many people think it's indicative of racism speaks more to the lens of race people bring to everything.

The lens isn't useless because we're not post-racial but in this case, it's not useful. It adds another variable without paying for it in increased explanatory power.

If it's racist for David Arquette to say, "SOME Latina women are crazy," What is it when a person of color says, "White people as a collective are mentally unstable" I know it's not racist, but what is it?

What is it? I think that depends, for one thing, on what "unstable" means. I think white people as a collective are delusional, but I don't know if that's the same as unstable. If it is the same, then what is it when a person of color says they're unstable/delusional, as a collective (which implies, to me, that some of them are not)? I'd say it's an accurate assessment. But then, to be totally sure of that, I'd have to hear just what particular way or ways that person meant unstable/delusional. As for DQ's comment about Latinas, I do feel pretty sure of what he meant -- he was reiterating a racist stereotype.

If it's racist for David Arquette to say, "SOME Latina women are crazy," What is it when a person of color says, "White people as a collective are mentally unstable" I know it's not racist, but what is it?

Making sweeping generalisations never helps any situation. It looks particularly bad when you come on TV saying these things when you are famous and have to apologise later.

David Arquette's comments had nothing to do with Sonia Sotomayor and the topic they were discussing on Fox and friends. How the conversation went from Sotomayor to Latina women being "nuts" is still a wonder, looked like he was trying to get something off his chest. However, it appears that he has since apologised for his comments.

"The strategy now seems to be to convince America at large that racism is a thing of the past (and indeed, many white people do already believe that, and a few non-white people too), and that anyone who points to racism, of any sort at all, is therefore a paranoid race hustler."

I think you're absolutely right about that.

I also think there's a reason why this strikes a chord among white people. POC are sometimes paranoid around white people, and I encountered that sort of paranoia personally back when I worked at my university library. We'd just instituted a new policy that members of the general public were not allowed to use the library computers. Most people, when told this, were disappointed but accepted it without question.

The one exception was a black man who came to me asking for help using the library computers, which he had used before without any problems. I asked him the standard questions to ascertain whether he was affiliated with the university or the library in some way, and he was not, so I told him that as a member of the general public he could not access the library computers without joining and paying a fee. He seemed very suspicious, so I asked him whether he'd like to see the information sheet explaining the new policy. He did want to see it, so I showed it to him, and after that he was perfectly willing to accept the policy. I don't know it was because he suspected discrimination, but it wouldn't shock me if it was.

And then there was the time I was working at an extremely busy museum gift store. I was relatively new, so I didn't realize I could just have a manager run new cash to me when my register ran out, so when a small black boy approached wanting to buy something with cash, I told him I'm sorry, I need to go get cash, and you might get faster service at another register. Then a white woman with a credit card showed up just before I could leave and insisted on buying something, and I complied because there was no problem with credit card transactions, so it looked kind of bad when the boy's father came over to see what the problem was. He yelled at me for sending his son to the back of the line. A black co-worker of mine placated him, saying, "I feel you, my brother" and helping his son with his purchase.

That second incident was hurtful, because I was already flustered when the man started to complain, and because I didn't mean it the way the man took it, and also because of my co-worker's reaction, which felt rather treacherous. We'd talked before - didn't he know I was a nice person (i.e. not racist)? I was also frustrated, because as someone who would like to bridge racial divides, I really hated to think that someone had walked away from that incident feeling that he'd experienced yet another incidence of racism.

So because of these and other experiences, I personally feel I have to walk on eggshells around POC, at least some of the time. People of color have usually experienced racism and are sometimes, justifiably, a bit paranoid around white people. And many white people have the experience of being accused of racism (a dire insult among whites) when they didn't think they were being racist, so they develop some paranoia around POC. It's not a healthy dynamic at all.

I figure as a white person, my obligation is to maintain common courtesy and not take it personally when a person of color suspects me of racism. And white people certainly should not cry racism over these kinds of incidents. That makes absolutely no sense in the context of the realities of our society.

@bluey512 - I agree, the best thing for white folks like you, who sincerely want to bridge the gap, to do is treat everyone with common courtesy. Even if we're suspicious, if you can show us the new "rule," we'll comply like the guy at the library, cause we're not looking for racism.

With that little boy, you actually have 2 other options -1 - make the lady wait so you can get cash to help the little boy,

or

2 - demonstrate to the little boy that you really don't have enough cash

Something along the lines of those two. Like I said, we're not looking for racism. But if we suspect it, sorry, but white people don't have enough credibility in this regard for us to take your word.

I can understand how your co-worker made you feel worse. And he had other options, too. I guess first off, he just wanted to make the little boy feel better. And I know all the angst white folks have about us teaching our kids to see racism where there is none; but in the short amount of time there was, when it comes to lifting the boy's self-esteem, validating his feelings was the right thing to do. Cause I've been where the little boy was, and even though there really wasn't anything racial going on, it's still quite a shock to the system for that to happen.

And here's the "mysterious" thing when it comes to racism and the way it operates - Even though you weren't being racist, studies show that whites are more likely to have a bank account/credit card, that type of thing than blacks. So, racism could've been involved, just not from you. Get it? So yeah, whites should be mindful to treat everyone the same. And if a black person accuses you of racism, and you're really not racist, just go with the flow, explain what's up, and it'll generally die down. If you get all defensive about it, that just generally proves our suspiciouns.~Even when it comes to cops. And consider this (not just bluey): if you can't handle putting yourself in harms way without having such a negative reaction just because someone accused you "falsely" of racism, then maybe you shouldn't be a police officer.

This is what makes me think white people as a collective are mentally unstable - despite not being the ones who'd experience racism, they purport to tell those of us who do that it doesn't exist.

And yet the way race discourse goes for some Whites, some of the very people who will say, patronizing or oblivious all the way, "I can never know what it's like to be Black (in America)"... promptly followed by it's "not about race" or its more subtle equivalent "more about class than race" which is a statement that fully intends of establishing the former and not the latter -- i.e. the real life implications of any degree of race/racism being involved isn't accounted for in those instances.

"Like I said, we're not looking for racism. But if we suspect it, sorry, but white people don't have enough credibility in this regard for us to take your word."

Yeah, that's become pretty clear to me by now. And I definitely could have handled that situation better. I should have just said "this register is closed" to both parties, and then it would have been fine. Interesting point about credit cards, although it's also possible that he was like any other kid whose parents had given him a fistful of dollar bills to go buy whatever cost $5 or less in the gift shop - and believe me, there were lots of them. I really can't tell.

I felt defensive about it then, but I think I understand better now what was going on. It's all too easy to fall into, "He thinks I'm an asshole just because I'm white? That is so racist!" or whatever. But when you educate yourself about race, it becomes clear that that kind of reaction is complete bullshit - and you're absolutely right, defensiveness never helps.

I think the tactics aim is to make it so every time a non-white speaks out against genuine racism it seems like they are crying wolf, so when whites hear non-whites speaking out against racism they just hear the "the race card being played yet again".

tell me if this is paranoia...i got on the bus and there were two white people on already. When they were ready to get off they said "thank you" to the white bus driver and the bus driver responded "your welcome". When i was ready to get off, i said "thank you" and he didn't respond...what does that tell you?

"And I know all the angst white folks have about us teaching our kids to see racism where there is none; but in the short amount of time there was, when it comes to lifting the boy's self-esteem, validating his feelings was the right thing to do."

By confirming the false idea that all whites are racist, you helped the boy? Bt confirming that little white boys don't nave to deal with things like that? Validate his feelings, even though their wrong?

"Blogger annon said...

tell me if this is paranoia...i got on the bus and there were two white people on already. When they were ready to get off they said "thank you" to the white bus driver and the bus driver responded "your welcome". When i was ready to get off, i said "thank you" and he didn't respond...what does that tell you?"

How can blacks enjoy full equality if they can't accept that a white person might be busy, distracted, maybe doesn't respond the exact same way every time, maybe was looking at something in the rearview mirror.... or even have a good reason to have an issue with them?

I was stuck behind a car blocking the passing lane by going the same speed as the car in the right lane for ages today, even after flashing my lights etc - it's so frustrating not being able to pass with a clear open road farther up ahead and a line of impatient drivers on my tail also wanting to pass. I finally got around her and as I made an angry gesture I noticed1.she was texting or dialing a cell phone2. She was black.

Gee I wonder if she thought I was a racist? She'll probably be telling that story for awhile. She certainly seemed offended, just as she was completely oblivious to her own rudeness and the dangerous road situation she had created.

Most whites are intimidated by cops too. Do you think we control them? They work for the big guns. I agree with the law enforcement thing, but making your kids paranoid sucks - I've had to deal with that situation in the schools.

Okay, that he is likely to meet with racism from whites, and he needs to be constantly vigilant, and yes confirming that he was treated unfairly when he was in fact not. How the hell is that helping? It will more likely hold him back, which is really sad.

What is so shocking about being sent to another register because the young worker did not have cash? I'm sure he would have gotten over it a lot faster if his Dad hadn't made such a big deal about it.

I think the co-worker was most at fault. He confirmed the family's racist fears AND did not support his co-worker who was clearly not being racist.

We all deal with this shit every day. It's not just you. Maybe rich people get more respect, but most of us are in the same boat.

"But if we suspect it, sorry, but white people don't have enough credibility in this regard for us to take your word."

Sorry. Take me at my word, or leave it. That's what being treated equally is. Not special, bending over backwards treatment. Personally, I'm a little tired of walking on eggshells.

How 'bout we all get together and work on the law enforcement problem, and stop all the hating and suspicion between us.

@ Isabel - No, it won't hold him back. In most cases, it likely is racism.

Of course, no one believes each and every individual white person has some sort of animosity towards black people. But when a Congresswoman can confess that the Republican party is looking for its "great white hope" and not face a barrage (sp?) of criticism calling for her to step down - a whole, whole, bunch of white folks are racist and have some unfounded, unreasonable, irrational, negative idea of black people and all people of color.

Even the fact that you think you know better than a person of color how to deal with racism is an indication of your privilege. And arrogance. You even have the privilege of not wondering if some negative event was due to racism. (Cause, from my experience, black folks at least don't leave any doubt.) The truth is, white people don't have any credibility and don't deserve the benefit of doubt. Take that or leave it.

And growing up, I knew of white kids with credit/debit cards or at least a whole lot of cash; and more white kids than black.

For example, I see TONS of blacks on tv, and interact with many Black managers and such. The last two doctors I visited were Asian. And kids books are over 50% PoC these days. I certainly don't feel assured that all these humans who function as temporary authority figures or whose images I come across will be white "like me". And I could give a shit, really. And the idea that whites who screw up are not representing their race is disproven every day, right here. Etc etc etc.So yeah I think the much loved and oft-recommended essay on the subject is laughably outdated.

Furthermore, PoC are not subject to all the trashing whites get (such as here)in the media, accused of having no culture and no souls, especially lower-class whites, the national laughingstock. And everyone thinks PoC are cool and wants to hang out with them! So no, within a particular socioeconomic class, not really, not these days. The differences between people of different classes are astronomical in comparison.

I find the law enforcement disparity alarming, but I've been speaking out about the constant incubator and generator of this form of corruption, the Drug War, for years. Have you? Hey complaining PoC - start recording your interactions, posting them on-line, march on Washington (or your local police station) and organize anti-drug war protests and I'll join you, just stop complaining because you imagine they are not bothering me. Or implying the cops are doing it for me, or that I have control over them. When they do harass white people it's usually not the rich. Complain about THAT once in a while. And try to keep in mind that most whites are not rich. Sort of like you.

Finally, I think your refusal to listen to the criticism (not just from me) that you are not separating out class from race is dishonest at this point. It infects your whole stated purpose with a form of scapegoating.

While I have written on this blog much more than you're acknowledging about race and class together, I also acknowledge that I should do more to highlight my own class bias. Just as my whiteness is normalized, and thus rendered to people like me invisible in many ways, so is my middle-classness.

That said, much of what I point out about whiteness does apply to most white people, regardless of their class. Also, I have written specifically about class issues (and the racist Drug War and criminal justice system), as well as the travails of lower-class white people -- the way they're obnoxiously ridiculed in the media; their susceptibility to a white racial framing of culture, politics, justice, and so on; the wedge driven between them and their non-white class-based cohorts by an elite class, and more. It's not my fault that you haven't read these posts, and I also don't see a reason to limit my blog to that facet of whiteness. And if you're claiming that my "scapegoat" is lower-class white people, I just don't see it.

I find your dismissal of McIntosh's essay as "dated" dismaying, along with your refusal to answer my question about how white privilege is a factor in your own life. You think you've seen a few examples of things that differ from how McIntosh portrayed them over twenty years ago, and therefore the essay is "outdated"? No, it's not. Its main points and insights are still entirely relevant -- and still largely ignored by most white Americans. White privilege really is something that all white Americans have, and it is a significant factor in their lives, whether or not you yourself like to acknowledge and work against that. Encouraging white people of any class to wake up to that is worth doing, and not the trivial pursuit that you claim it is. I find it ironic that while you tell me that I shouldn't separate out class from race, that's exactly what you're doing in your dismissal of the significance of the facets of whiteness highlighted on this blog, including white privilege, the white racial frame, the training of people who learn to be white, common white reactions to and actions against non-white people, institutional/systemic racism, the deleterious effects for white people themselves of their largely unconscious allegiance to whiteness, and so on.

There's a lot that's unconsciously absorbed by white people, because they're white, that I think they should wake up to. You demonstrate that yourself, when you write things like the following -- why not at least take what you can from this blog that applies to yourself?

I see TONS of blacks on tv, and interact with many Black managers and such. The last two doctors I visited were Asian. And kids books are over 50% PoC these days.

Why are you so much more focused on the few non-whites who've "made it," than on the many, many more who haven't, which is a disproportion caused by racism?

"TONS of blacks on tv"? Give me a break. You're demonstrating a common white tendency here: to overestimate the number of non-white people in largely white environments. What's the matter -- feeling threatened? And why "blacks" in that statement, and not other non-whites? You also seem to see matters of race, when you do see them, as a black-and-white thing -- again, like most white people do.

Your statistic on books is interesting -- please provide authoritative evidence, because I really doubt that, especially coming from someone who's demonstrating the common white tendency to overestimate the percentages of non-white people in largely white contexts.

Make no mistake about it, Isabel, you don't know anything about what it's like to be a person of color. Class and race can't be "separated" from one another. So, a black person who appears "middle class" will be treated better than another black person who appears "lower class." But, even poor whites have more financial security than middle class blacks and better medical treatment and outcomes and health. For all the bashing of "welfare queens," (and if you don't imagine a specific race, then you're 1 in 300mill), white women are more likely to be approved for welfare and receive more welfare and more help getting off welfare than black women of similar/equal situations and backgrounds.

Basically, Isabel, because of white privilege, white people don't experience the extent of racism and can't speak on it with any credibility. But if you're really interested in racial harmony and racial justice, you should read up on studies and research, and not just rely on your singular experience, which, I repeat, is by definition distorted. No, people of color don't have distorted perspectives. Studies prove what we say about racism and disprove what white people say.

"Why are you so much more focused on the few non-whites who've "made it," than on the many, many more who haven't, which is a disproportion caused by racism?"

I'm not "focused" on anybody. The point you missed was that if I ask to speak to the manager, apply for a bank loan or see a doctor I do not have an "expectation" that that person will "look like me". Far from it.

And I could just as easily say the same thing about you in reference to whites.

And I am not overestimating. Maybe it's the shows I watch:) And of the 20 channels or so I get with my low cost Cable tv account, 8 are non-English. Same with radio. I heard 1274 shows from various racial perspectives last year alone.

I've referred to Asians and "PoC" a lot. Also, as a southern European 'ethnic white' do I get to be PoC too? When Italians arrived on these shores were they PoC? The Irish, who were considered black?

"especially coming from someone who's demonstrating the common white tendency to overestimate the percentages of non-white people in largely white contexts."

That's a bullshit accusation. YOU need to get out of YOUR white world.

I'm helping, not whining and blaming.

"Class and race can't be "separated" from one another."

Umm, wasn't that my point? Do YOU see white people as one monolithic group?

"But, even poor whites have more financial security than middle class blacks "

WTF?????????? What financial security?

"which, I repeat, is by definition distorted."

Have you read up on white history? My people were unwelcome here, had crosses burned on their lawns, were laughed at as idiots and accused of lowering IQs in the states they immigrated to....I could go on, but the point is, that has given me NO insight into anything the sainted Bronze people from the south are experiencing.

Other white were enslaved along with the blacks in this country until the rich decided to divide them, and also to have a slave class that was easier to keep track of - the damn poor whites blended in better. Many of the leftover, cast aside white slaves are poor to this day.

You people are fucking deluded. People are people. Get over yourselves.

"No, people of color don't have distorted perspectives."

HaHaHaHaha Yes the sainted people of color see the world in crystal clarity! Wow! Unlike all other humans who have ever lived on the planet. I am in absolute awe! So being a PoC gives one special powers! Damn I wish my people hadn't become white - we lost our powers!

I'm painfully tired of this conversation. Go on with your white bashing. There is nothing that you are concerned about that is not improving on it's own, except law enforcement. THAT'S who's being left off the hook in this country. And I'm not talking about the individual officers.

Name one, besides the increase in disparity as a result of the drug war, which I actively fight against.

And, that is not the result of economic stagnation that has affected everybody. That is not racism.

Or that isn't a result of most immigrants of the last few decades being non-white, naturally resulting in them being over-represented in the lower economic rungs. Class mobility has stagnated for everyone during that period. So that is not racism either.

So what have you got?

Yes, it's white bashing when you make a stupid generalization about hundreds of millions of people every five seconds, especially when most of the criticisms apply to a small subset of those people, specifically upper-middle class whites.

Isabel, what the fuck are you doing here, other than demonstrating to everyone else that you're an ignorant, entitled bitch?

Example, the first:

By confirming the false idea that all whites are racist, you helped the boy?

The first real-life lesson my mother told me is that I have to be twice as good as the little white girl sitting next me. She wasn't telling me that so I could dial the NAACP every time I felt remotely slighted by a white person. She told me as an act of self-preservation.

All mothers tell their kids to look both ways when crossing the street. That doesn't mean they're telling them that every driver loves to run down little children.

THOSE WHO DO NOT EXPERIENCE THE OPPRESSION, DO NOT GET TO DEFINE THE OPPRESSION.

How can blacks enjoy full equality if they can't accept that a white person might be busy, distracted, maybe doesn't respond the exact same way every time, maybe was looking at something in the rearview mirror.... or even have a good reason to have an issue with them?

Your skull is so fucking thick that I doubt of this is getting through to you, but I'll try anyway...

PEOPLE OF COLOR DO NOT GO AROUND LOOKING FOR RACISM. Of course, we can tell if another person is just having a bad day. We can also tell when someone is being a racist prick. As a matter of fact, I'm getting that feeling now and it's coming from your direction.

I think the co-worker was most at fault. He confirmed the family's racist fears AND did not support his co-worker who was clearly not being racist.

Why should the coworker support the other cashier? And who says he "was clearly not being racist"?

I mean, what would the Black coworker and the Black family know about racism anyway?

(BTW, that was sarcasm. In case you needed a clue. And from all the bullshit who've been spouting, I think that you do.)

When Italians arrived on these shores were shackled to each other, forced from their families, sold as chattel, suffered centuries of slavery, endured Jim Crow laws, fought to be recognized as more than 3/8 of a person, and continue to wear the mantle of racism, genocide, and colonialism that his been the foundation of many western societies, including but not limited to the US?

I'm helping, not whining and blaming.

coughBULLSHITcough

Have you read up on white history?

Have YOU?

Other white were enslaved along with the blacks in this country until the rich decided to divide them, and also to have a slave class that was easier to keep track of - the damn poor whites blended in better.

Sooo...you WANTED white people to be enslaved?

"In many ways, racism is getting WORSE"

Name one, besides the increase in disparity as a result of the drug war, which I actively fight against.

The increase in disparity as a result of the drug war, which some racist ass-hats feel the need to benevolently offer their services as proof of their not being a racist ass-hattery.

And, that is not the result of economic stagnation that has affected everybody. That is not racism.

Or that isn't a result of most immigrants of the last few decades being non-white, naturally resulting in them being over-represented in the lower economic rungs. Class mobility has stagnated for everyone during that period. So that is not racism either.

Thank you Nice White Lady for explaining racism to us poor little negroes.

Yes, it's white bashing when you make a stupid generalization about hundreds of millions of people every five seconds, especially when most of the criticisms apply to a small subset of those people, specifically upper-middle class whites.

Ahem:

How can blacks enjoy full equality if they can't accept that a white person might be busy, distracted, maybe doesn't respond the exact same way every time, maybe was looking at something in the rearview mirror.... or even have a good reason to have an issue with them?...

Furthermore, PoC are not subject to all the trashing whites get (such as here)in the media, accused of having no culture and no souls, especially lower-class whites, the national laughingstock. And everyone thinks PoC are cool and wants to hang out with them!...

Hey complaining PoC - start recording your interactions, posting them on-line, march on Washington (or your local police station) and organize anti-drug war protests and I'll join you, just stop complaining because you imagine they are not bothering me....

You people are fucking deluded....

HaHaHaHaha Yes the sainted people of color see the world in crystal clarity! Wow! Unlike all other humans who have ever lived on the planet. I am in absolute awe! So being a PoC gives one special powers!....

I haven't even gotten started:

Asians have a much higher median income than whites in the US, and Asian countries hold most of our debt and own many of our most famous buildings etc..A recent article in the New York Times about college students of different races rooming together rated Asian students most racist going in to a mixed-race roommate situation, unchanged by the experience and even most likely to influence their roommates to become more racist...Well, Asians certainly seem to be positioning themselves to take on more institutionalized power and by all accounts are poised to tip the global power balance in the not-too-distant future, so it will be interesting to see if and when perceptions change...

And I wonder - can the alleged racism of the majority Asian students in some top programs (which I have been a witness to) make black and Latino students uncomfortable in those programs, and could that not constitute institutionalized racism? I suppose someone is going to counter that the Asian students are acting under the banner of the university's white privilege...

1 - Healthcare: Studies have shown blacks receive less aggressive, and therefore better, treatment than white patients. Unless the treatment is something relatively quick, easy and profitable. When coming to the emergency room complaining of pain and/or when leaving after surgery, blacks are more likely to be given non-narcotic drugs like advit than whites; this even though whites are more likely to abuse prescription drugs.

2 - Drug War - Which you rightly fight against: Even though blacks and whites abuse drugs/use illegal drugs at the same rate, blacks make up nearly 1/3 of all drug related arrests. Blacks are stopped more, whether traffic or pedestrian; once stopped, searched more; once searched, there is no increase in the likelyhood of criminal activity. In fact, when it comes to traffic stops, whites are more likely to be transporting illegal drugs.

3 - Criminal Justice - Bearing in mind that once studies hold for economic status, there is no difference in crime rates between the races.: Blacks are more likely to be arrested; more likely to be charged; morely likely to be convicted; receive harsher penalties and longer sentencing; all for the same crime. And even if you don't hold for socioecon status, blacks are still disproportionately represented in prisons.

4 - Education: Black students are routinely placed in academic tracks beneath their demonstrated abilities; ie, even if a student's standardized test scores indicate s/he should be placed in advance classes, s/he is still placed in regular classes. It's slightly the opposite for white students who are placed in classes, advanced or regular, they really don't belong in. When it comes to school punishment, black students are punished more often and more harshly than white students even though both groups misbehave at the same rate. And speaking of libraries, on average, only 3% of books in school libraries feature and/or written by an African American. When it comes to books in general, publishing companies place white faces on the cover of books featuring black characters.

5 - Financial security: Due to wealth accumulation, a white couple earning $15k or less is more likely to own a home than a black couple earning $60k. When it comes to mortgages, even for equal income, credit rating, downpayment, etc, blacks are given more expensive loans and are more likely to be given subprime loans when they qualify for prime loans. Then of course, there's the discrimination in employment and income. And as for everything getting worse for everybody - the black unemployment rate has been at about 10% or more since 2001. Things got much worse for us much quicker. We are losing much more wealth on average than white Americans.

Other anti-racists, did I leave anything significant out? If I did, please fill in the gap or I will do so later.

Again, Isabel, studies show the black perspective on racism is more accurate than the white perspective. For whatever the reason, you are overestimating how many blacks you see on TV and the demographics of blacks nationally. We only make up 13% of the national population. So, unless you intentionally watch black shows, ie The Cosby Show, Living Single, Bernie Mac, The Game, you do not see tons of blacks on TV. CNN has only 1 black anchor. MSNBC has only 1 black anchor. These two anchor during the daytime and not primetime, where not network has any black anchors. Please not that Fox has no black anchors at any time.

When it comes to history, the history that is taught in American public schools, whether they're schools in the West End of Manhatten or South Central LA: the history is white American history. So to answer your question, yes, I've studied "white" American history and have a BA in history to prove it. True, ethnic Europeans faced discrimination, but never to the level of African Americans; and, for ethnic Europeans, after a generation or two, they were able to assimilate and become "American." This has nothing to do with culture, for example: ethnic Europeans were predominantly Catholic whereas blacks are predominantly Protestant, which is more in line with mainstream American religion; until relatively recently, black and white Southerns all spoke in general the same dialect. In terms of linguistics, white Southerns began mainstreaming their accent in order to distance themselves from blacks. So, what allowed ethnic Europeans to assimilate was the color of their skin. Moreover, ethnic Europeans were given employment ahead of blacks and better pay.

As to whites coming over as slaves, you must be referring to indentured servitude in which: one, whites came voluntarily; and two, no matter how badly they were treated, indentured servitude only lasted 7 years. I can't recall anything even suggesting white indentured servants, during their servitude, were terrorized the way black slaves were. Also, part of the decision to move away from indentured servitude to racialized slavery was that white indentured servants could often mix in with the crown and escape, for lack of a better word. African indentured servants could not.

Again Isabel, before you start whining and complaining about white bashing - in the same historical moment that the GOP is reportedly looking for its "great white hope" and with the increase in membership of hate groups and with comparisons of Obama to Hitler - please do the research and learn the facts. I'm not commenting from my own singular experience, but from having studied American history and since graduation, read the research on racism. I've been more radical since college, and things are worse than even I thought.

Oh, yeah. When it comes to comparing who's "bashed" the most, keep in mind that crimes involving black perpetrators/suspects are reported on in local news at a much higher rate than they occur.

"Financial security: Due to wealth accumulation, a white couple earning $15k or less is more likely to own a home than a black couple earning $60k."

How the hell does a white couple earning 15K accumulate wealth? Please tell me - I could use this information. Also you have not demonstrated how racism is getting WORSE.

"keep in mind that crimes involving black perpetrators/suspects are reported on in local news at a much higher rate than they occur."

??? They are making up crimes?

"one, whites came voluntarily;"

wrong.

"only lasted 7 years."

wrong

"I can't recall anything even suggesting white indentured servants, during their servitude, were terrorized the way black slaves were."

well they were. Kidnapped, brought over in chains, beaten, bought and sold, used and abused. But over time it became worse for blacks for sure, but that is not to minimize what whites went through and the continued poverty and exploitation they experienced.

"Also, part of the decision to move away from indentured servitude to racialized slavery was that white indentured servants could often mix in with the crown and escape, for lack of a better word."

I just said that. And why "run away and escape" if it was all you said it was? Why were they always running away in desparation and joining forces with the blacks to rebel, if they volunteered and were going to be free after seven years?

". True, ethnic Europeans faced discrimination, but never to the level of African Americans"

Well in the early colonial days I would disagree, but as for the later "hordes" of immigrants you are correct. I was comparing them to other immigrants of today, such as latinos, who are supposedly also experiencing racism and are considered PoC are they not? Who the hell are we talking about here when we say PoC?

Also why is it bad to say blacks are loud in movie theatres, but good to say whites put their mothers in nursing homes?

"And speaking of libraries, on average, only 3% of books in school libraries feature and/or written by an African American. "

I was referring to kids books, ones with pictures in them. I specifically said "the latest kids books". I hadn't thought about cover pictures of books for older kids. But for the type I was referring to, all PoC are well represented in current libraries that I have visited with young children. How is this "getting worse?" How is representation in the media "getting worse?"

"And growing up, I knew of white kids with credit/debit cards or at least a whole lot of cash; and more white kids than black."

We are talking about a "little boy." I've NEVER met a small white child with credit cards or anyone under college age for that matter. Although you DO know more about white people than I do......

"I mean, what would the Black coworker and the Black family know about racism anyway?"

Jeez Louise Chica, there was NO evidence of racism - the cashier was new and didn't know how to get cash! Yes, annoying, seemingly unfair things happen to all of us fairly frequently.

"Of course, we can tell if another person is just having a bad day."

Really cuz I can't, when someone does not respond to me in the way I expect. Must be those super powers again.

Indentured servitude was a voluntary agreement in trade for service (e.g. transportation, room and board) and it lasted for 7 years per the agreement. Did you even graduate from school as it's described in even the most basic history class?

No1skate, Paul, Angel H., and others, Isabel is a troll. Just ignore her. Hopefully, Macon D, you will too. The amount of ignorance and sheer ineptitude of her posts serve to tick everyone off.

"Indentured servitude was a voluntary agreement...blah blah blah...even the most basic history class?"

So the way I learned it in history class is the TRUTH? HaHaHa.

BTW thank you for teaching me about my history. It's so kind of you.

Macon d, since you're an expert, why don't you enlighten her?

And maybe you could explain why it's okay to say whites put their mothers in nursing homes and have racist memorabalia in their homes, but not okay to make offensive generalizations about Blacks? How is this helping? Well you can all go to hell as far as I'm concerned. You have ignored all my concerns (WHY was the cashier a racist? would he have done something differently if the little boy had been white?) and are very hostile and abusive, calling me a troll and a racist and an entitled bitch and more.

When I compare whites to blacks you complain that I am not considering other PoC so I am a racist.

Them when I compare earlier waves of immigrants to recent immigrants (who are supposedly victims of racism) you automatically assume I am comparing them to Blacks instead and call me an ignorant racist.

Macon, please see a therapist about your "white tendencies." Please stop projecting them on all people with light skin. I have never met anyone in my entire life who trashes blacks, even behind their backs, who would tell a black child to go to the end of a line (????) or has racist memorabalia in their homes. My grandparents did not die in nursing homes. I am sympathetic to many of the concerns here - but your approach is a turnoff.

Who are the real ruling class in this society? What is their ethnic background - SPECIFICALLY. What are their names? Who in the society has the power to do something about disparity in law enforcement? I sure as hell haven't had any success, and believe me I've tried.

In the context, wealth accumulation refers to the ability to inherit and transfer wealth. So. The home that poor whites own was inherited because whites have been able to acquire and transfer wealth from one generation to the next for a much longer period of time.

Racism is worse to the extent that indicators are getting worse: ie, the gap in wealth has increased since the 90s.

There is no proof that Europeans were treated as badly as Africans. Yes, I see that the poor/vagrant/prostitutes were kidnapped. But what I meant, and sorry for the confusion, is that it's not as though anglos went into Scotland for the purpose of overtaking an entire village of people to be sold into history. If that happened, there certainly hasn't been any desire on the part of scots or british to talk about it.

However long it lasted, indentured servitude was temporary. People use the term "slave" to describe the position of the person visa vi their "master." But "slave" when describing an indentured servant and "slave" when describing an African don't mean the same thing. Kinda like people who live in a trailor in a trailor park and people who live in a mansion on an estate all talk about their "homes" but aren't refering to the same thing.

I was talking about kids books.

Yes, immigrants from southern europe had an experience comparable to that of immigrants from Latin america. But still, white skin can get you place brown skin won't.

Isabel, what you said was that kids' books are over 50% POC these days. Those are your words. And they are complete nonsense.

I have two daughters - one in second grade but reading at a much higher level, and one toddler - and we spend a lot of time in libraries and book stores. I also write YA stories, so I'm pretty familiar with that level of literature as well. So I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the characters in children's books are not anywhere near 50% POC at any reading level, from board books up to Young Adult.

In fact, the dominant practice in YA books has always been to "whitewash" the few characters of color in jacket illustrations. Look up "Liar" for a recent example of this, or try "A Wizard of Earthsea", a YA fantasy classic with a black hero who has NEVER been illustrated black.

yes poor and working class whites have generally accumulated lots of wealth.

more time needed to catch up does not indicate worsening racism. So, eventually you will catch up. You need to provide evidence that this is harder to do, or taking longer for PoC, or impossible. Funny how after hundreds of years of privilege the majority of whites haven't made it into the upper middle class.

"Racism is worse to the extent that indicators are getting worse: ie, the gap in wealth has increased since the 90s."

For EVERYONE. We are going in circles now. Wheeeee!

"is that it's not as though anglos went into Scotland for the purpose of overtaking an entire village of people to be sold into history."

Look up "Cromwell" and "Ireland" for starters.

Those "vagrants" who were kidnapped (the origin of the word in fact) were generally CHILDREN of people who had been forced off the land they were occupying as serfs for centuries so the rich could put their sheep there instead, which was more profitable.

"children's books are not anywhere near 50% POC at "

Okay okay I was being somewhat hyperbolic. Calm down people! Would you say minorities are still underrepresented in young kids (picture)books?

I guess to someone who doesn't have them, common sense could be seen as a superpower.

Bottom line:

Nobody here has said that class discrimination doesn't exist. But your complete and utter refusal to even consider the fact that, all things being equal save race, People of Color (Blacks, Asians, and Latin@s) do suffer from racism on a daily basis is nothing more than willful ignorance. And a perfect example of racism.

Yes, white people who live under the poverty line have hardships. BUT THEY WILL NEVER SUFFER THE SAME HARDSHIPS AS A PERSON OF COLOR IN THE SAME SITUATION BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE. It's a very simple concept. But, like I said, when some people don't have it, I guess common sense may seem like some magical superpower.

You have ignored all my concerns...

As you have ignored ours.

...and are very hostile and abusive...

Only as much as you have been.

calling me a troll..

You are.

...and a racist...

You are.

...and an entitled bitch and more.

So far, I'm not seeing a problem.

I have never met anyone in my entire life who trashes blacks, even behind their backs...

Have you looked in a mirror today?

...who would tell a black child to go to the end of a line (????) or has racist memorabalia in their homes. My grandparents did not die in nursing homes.

And here is where your whole issue lies: IF IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU, DON'T MAKE IT ABOUT YOU.

Let's take it for face value that you don't have a racist bone in your body...

...sorry, threw up in my mouth a little bit...

...Just because YOU have never personally seen or experienced these things does not mean these experiences are invalid. Just because you have never actively participated in the discrimination and oppression of a Person of Color, does not mean that such situations don't occur.

When I called you an ignorant, entitled bitch and a racist, I didn't just pluck those words out of thin air. Your blatant disregard, disrespect, and willful disillusionment speak more volumes than those words ever could.

And when people are kind enough to offer you resources containing anecdotal, AND FACTUAL evidence you refuse to acknowledge any of it and claim that it doesn't amount to anything, that the true-to-life experiences of People of Color who have experiences that you have never and will never have, mean shit to you because it isn't enough.

Fuck you, Isabel.

Twice now, you've promised to keep walking and never look back. Meaning that you're not only an ignorant, entitled, racist bitch, you're also a liar.

That's the question I keep thinking about asking but decide its better not to because its not a very helpful question. I mean, what does asking such a question accomplish?

Do you have any statistical evidence to back up this claim? I can see that in the US the black middle class is more recent and much less secure in its position than its white equivalent. But I don't know that I accept the above statement.

I don't agree at all with Isabel's baffling insistence that race means nothing at all - black people are more likely to be poor or working class in the first place, due to past racism. And racism exists independently of class, and poor whites are better off than poor blacks and middle class black people are disadvantaged relative to middle class white people.

Accepting racism exists and that black people are greatly disadvantaged by it doesn't change the fact that class exists also. Why is it so important to Isabel to deny the former? Both are real issues.

Not that I'm much of an authority on it, not being subject to it, but the thing that seems so insidious about racism today is that it in its dominant form it acts like class-plus-a-visible-marker. Race has all the self-perpetuating structural issues of class, but is also highly visible.

Class in general is a self-perpetuating system, but when its visible the way race is it's clearly harder to escape its restrictions (and its hard enough to transcend economic class, social mobility being dismally low across the West). Given that context it surely only takes a relatively low-level, mild, kind of 'classic' racism permeating society to render the whole system completely suffocating.

Even with old-style blatant racism out of fashion (which I think it is), it just seems to me that its the way even a low-level, unexplicit racism reinforces this quasi-class system, suppressing what little permeability it has, that makes it so intractable.

@ Q - Yes, it's based on research. Understand that by financial security, what I mean is that there's less to lose if something goes wrong. Like if a middle class black couple is paying down a mortgage and something happens, they could likely lose their home. Due to wealth accumulation, a poor white couple is more likely to own their home and stand a greater chance of keeping it. Discrimination in income and the financial services market make the situation for members of the black middle class more precarious than would be if racism didn't exist.

And let me explain wealth accumulation for you. When scholars/academics, or just regular people talking about social issues, say "wealth accumulation," we do not mean that the person(s) in question are wealthy. What we're talking about isn't just about how much money a person can accumulate in his/her lifetime; in addition to that, we're talking about what they have inherited. And also, we use "wealth" to apply to any amount of net resourses - so if I've been able to save $10K, that doesn't make me "wealthy" but is the amount of "wealth" I have. So, because all whites have had greater employment opportunities than blacks; and, only 2% of eligible blacks actually received the GI and VA benefits due WW2 vets; and, many of the New Deal programs were denied blacks until the 60s; even whites who are poor have been able to pass down/inherit wealth. So, to kinda put it together for ya - say you have a poor white guy and any random black guy in the 40s. They're both sent to war. But the white guy is able to use a VA loan to buy a house, and the black guy, because of racism, isn't. Coming back, also, the white guy is gonna have a job because industry will force out/demote women and hire white men. Industry also demoted black men to give jobs to white vets. Black vets had no such job guarantee. But the black guy does get it a job. Well, first off, he's not gonna make as much. Right? So you got this white guy with a fairly decent job who's using govt funds to buy a house; and a black guy with not so decent a job who's also paying high rent. Fast forward to now, and the white guy had a house he could leave his kids whereas the black guy did not. That's what I mean by "wealth accumulation" and why even poor whites have more financial security than middle class blacks. I've even read one report that said lower-class whites get better mortgage rates than middle-class blacks, even considering amount of loan, downpayment, etc. So, hopefully that makes sense.

Do you have any statistical evidence to back up this claim? I can see that in the US the black middle class is more recent and much less secure in its position than its white equivalent. But I don't know that I accept the above statement.

According to this article in the Huffington Post, "well before the current downtown took root, 84 percent of African American and 88 percent of Latino middle-class families lacked the financial security needed to weather an economic storm".

"Meaning that you're not only an ignorant, entitled, racist bitch, you're also a liar."

Nice people you attract Macon d!

Isabel also wrote,

Well you can all go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

Um, pot-kettle-black much?

Isabel also wrote,

"children's books are not anywhere near 50% POC at "

Okay okay I was being somewhat hyperbolic.

Somewhat?

And most importantly, can you see how your hyperbolic tendency in this regard -- overestimating percentages of nonwhite people in largely white settings -- is a common white tendency, very much of the sort that Macon often blogs about? Come now Isabel, you can admit it . . . being classified as white IS a significant, and damaging factor in your own life too.

I'm not calling you a racist for arguing. Past white commenters have argued and debated many discussions on this blog, but many have done so while respecting the fact that, as white people, racism does not and will not affect them the same way it affects People of Color. You, on the other hand, are rude, disrespectful, dismissive, and inconsiderate.

So I guess a racist is a person who disagrees with a person of color, who by definition knows all.

All your strawmen are doing is making the place stink of rotten hay.

If you're gonna come with it, try bringing a little something called "knowledge" and "insight".

"Come now Isabel, you can admit it . . . being classified as white IS a significant, and damaging factor in your own life too."

Damaging factor? Do you hear yourself?

Also, plenty of Blacks actually agree with me, that it's no longer such a big issue within a socioeconomic class. Are they self-hating racists too? And I have said nothing racist here. ever. Calling someone a racist is a major insult, not something you throw around. You need to back it up with evidence that I am prejudiced or willingly participating in someone's oppression. Calling someone who's been poor their whole life (and yes with no inherited wealth) "entitled" and "privileged" because they do not agree with you is just as bad. I think my anger is justified.

And Ive never said anything nearly as offensive as "white people are obsessed with black women's butts". Oh yeah that is really helping. Or "But it seems as a collective, white people don't really care much for facts."

Yes I know why you approve of some white commenters. The Good Whites who play by your rules. Of course you would find them more "respectful". I just don't do groveling, sorry. All this "just admit you're privileged and 'damaged' Isabel, then we can start the healing" just comes off like so much weird religious psychobabble.

By the way darling, you haven't explained how the cashier was racist. I am still waiting for an explanation. Everyone attacked my opinions on that matter, but you haven't defended your position.

You actually implied that had the little boy been white, he would have had a credit card or the cashier would have found a way to take his cash. I find that ridiculous. The cashier in fact seemed like a nice person who wanted to help, and now you are also calling him a racist.

I do wonder if we have different ideas of what the term 'middle class' means, though.

I'm in the UK, and when I think about class status, I _absolutely_ would include inherited wealth (and, more subtly of course, all the intangible inheritances, like high-status education, and elite social networks and good health, and the right accent, not to mention the confidence and sense of belonging in middle-class environments).

To me that's a large part of what I'd mean by 'class'.

But I guess I'm having trouble grasping your point because the context in the US is different.

Americans seem to just have a very wide, blanket term 'middle class' that means 'not living in a trailer but not a millionaire', I'd define it much more narrowly than that (not being American), and its a continuum anyway, lower and upper middle class are very different. The upper middle class come from wealth, go to private schools or 'good' state schools, have university-educated parents in professional jobs, and own large houses. The lower middle class do lower status white collar work, have little inherited capital and are state educated.

Also, to me, working class people, certainly the poorer end of the working class, very often don't _have_ any inherited wealth, because their parents (and grandparents) weren't property owners - they lived in social housing or rented privately. That's what most working class people in the UK traditionally did, white or otherwise. The poorer end still are not property owners. Up until Thatcher almost half the population lived in social housing.

Is this different in the US, then? Are even the 'poor', property owners? Even the ones in trailer parks? That's where I am doubtful about 'poor whites' having more financial security - even the ones who have _no_ inherited wealth at all?

There are two sides to your point, no? The one above, to me, is just another way of saying middle-class black people are not as securely middle-class as white people, because of a couple of centuries of racism.

The second part though, is about on-going racism today, as opposed to the accumulated effects of past racism, right? I accept entirely that that's a huge independent factor that isn't included when talking about 'class'.

My disagreement is that to me, the first would be included in a more graduated definition of 'middle class',and that I would define poor as 'having NO inherited wealth'. But I guess the US doesn't think of class that way?

@isabel

Black people's class mobility presumably rose in the 60s because the 60s was an economic boom period, which saw a big structural change in the economy and an increase in the size of the middle class. It wasn't really 'social mobility' in the sense of a more fluid class structure (the clue being that few people were downwardly mobile), it was a one-off stuctural change, which has since stopped.

Blacks could get into the middle class, partly because, I guess, the most extreme forms of racism that excluded them, had been defeated in earlier struggles, and partly because there was suddenly much more room available in that class.The economic situation has changed since then, and black people, being the most recent in to the middle class, appear to be in danger of being the first out. I think that would be true _even_ if there were no explicit racism any more. The effects of past racism are still embodied in the class structure.

First off, saying that kids' books are 50% POC is not "somewhat hyperbolic". It's nonsense. If you want to discuss things honestly, you should just retract that statement, without qualifiers.

I do believe that POC are still under-represented in picture books. Yes, their representation has improved in the last generation or so. That's not saying much, though, since a generation ago most of the POC in mainstream American picture books were grotesque caricatures of Third World peoples in books about white kids having international adventures. We've come a long way since then. It doesn't mean things are all fine now.

Second, if you want to talk about ways in which racism is getting worse, read some reports on education. For example, the recent National Assessment on Educational Progress showed that the racial educational gap is closing slightly in the nation as a whole, but is actually widening in some states, such as Connecticut.

There are a numbers of factors in why this is happening, but one of the things that really jumps out in official reports by the Connecticut Board of Ed is the fact that in my own school district, during the 2006-2007 school year, 18% of black students and 13% of Hispanic students were suspended, compared to 4% of white students.

If you dig a little deeper, you can start to find all sorts of other anomalies that suggest that even in states where the education gap has officially narrowed, there may be problems. One of my friends is working on a report on the phenomenon of black kids getting "dropped up" to adult education programs to improve public school statistics. What's happening is the schools want to do well under the NCLB guidelines, so they are unofficially recommending that kids who are seen as "problems" switch to adult ed. Officially, the kids have left school to attend alternative education, so they aren't dragging the high school's test scores down and often aren't counted as dropouts. But adult ed programs don't give them the support framework that high school does (or should, at least), and a lot of the kids getting dropped up are the ones who need the most help - kids who already have emotional issues and socioeconomic strikes against them.

Now, I would bet my next paycheck you'll respond with something like "yes, but that's once again a class issue, not a racial one" - but the fact is, at least in my school district, almost all the kids that are getting dropped up are black or Latino. There are plenty of poor white kids in my city, but for whatever reason, this isn't happening to them.

Getting worse? It is here. And I don't believe Connecticut is the only place where official statistics don't tell the whole story.

Well, I read newspapers almost everyday, when I get the chance. When newspapers cover stories of crimes, when a crime is committed by a Black person, the news media will majority of the time quote the skin colour of the perpetrator, their commentary will go something like, "...the attacker was Black, wore jeans and trainers, hooded top and baseball cap..." etc

Now, I have noticed that when a White person commits a crime majority of the time the paper/media will say something like "Police are still looking for the attacker...", but cleverly will not mention the person's skin colour majority of the time, they will only give a description of the assailant eg height and build, omitting the colour.

Now, these papers use Psychology. The aim is to make out that Black people commit most or all of the crimes. Now, the more sensible I became, the more I could see through the smoke and mirrors. The facts are that people of all races and faces commit crime in equal proportions...FACT!

The facts are so clear that due to the recesssion, a number of high profile "White" fraudsters were uncovered. There was no way to obfuscate the information as they usually do, especially seeing as a number of financial institutions and large organisations were targeted in these fraudulent crimes. Now, on any given day, you would normally read a paper claiming that most people committing fraudulent acts were Black when in fact there are equally a good number of White fraudsters cruising under the radar. Thanks to the recession, these fraudsters were flushed out.

Also, I notice these crooks didn't get half the coverage and media exposure that they should have done. Had it been the other way round, you would not hear the end of it and it would be everyday breakfast news.

Now, most people are sheep, believe everything they read in the papers and watch on TV, without thinking logically. The media know this and feed people all kinds of rubbish, which of course they fall for everyday.

Oh, and where are these people who think PoC are cool and want to hang out? I have not come across them yet. Speak for yourself. Where are you getting these statistics from anyway?

Having Black doctors or PoC as doctors should not be surprising to you either. There are plenty of Black doctors, in fact there are about 5 in my family, mostly cousins on either side of the family dotted around the globe. Not trying to brag, but just because you do or do not see something or see a few this does not mean it does not exist.

Also, just because you see naked people on charity advertisements about Africa, do not assume that all Africans are starving and crying with flies in their mouth. This again, is what the media wants you to think, that Africa is full of starving, hungry children. Now, anyone who lived in Africa would know that many parts have lush fertile land.

Just because you see something on TV, it does not make it fact.

Besides, Black people have always been portrayed in the media as the underdog, inferior, less intelligent etc...Of course these are false lies. They know that most people are sheep and will fall for this rubbish.

Take this for example, my Manager in my old job in a UK University was a White woman. She has no GCSE's (one of the most basic qualifications in the UK), but she has worked in the org. for about 10 years or so. I am Black on the other hand, I have 9 GCSE's, diplomas and a degree and yet this woman was my Manager, bossing everybody about, a rude and uncouth bully. The only reason why she got away with half the things she got away with is because she is White. If she had been a Black woman with her stinking attitude, she would have been sacked a long time ago.

It is definitely not paranoia, the system is set up the way it is for a reason, sensible people know why that is. It is only people who live in denial and want to always "be the boss" or the sheep in society, who will argue blindly about the facts and live in denial, and why wouldn't they?

After all, they are not the ones who are adversely affected by all the negative stereotypes and false media representations and lies.

"However long it lasted, indentured servitude was temporary. People use the term "slave" to describe the position of the person visa vi their "master." But "slave" when describing an indentured servant and "slave" when describing an African don't mean the same thing."

Yes and No.

This according to the book The Culture of Make Believe by Derrick Jensen: "...the [Virginia Company of London]...financed transoceanic voyages for potential settlers, who on arrival became indentured servants.... After a specified time - sometimes seven years, sometimes ten or longer, sometimes never (as in when tenants were to 'belong to the said office for ever') - the servants were [freed]. ...these 'servants' [were] often called 'slaves' in parliamentary debate.... [Like] black and Indian slaves, white slaves were regularly subjected to whippings, rape, dismemberment, and murder. ...The period of servitude was often extended by owners beyond the original contract [by using] fictitious debts or such crimes as becoming pregnant, stealing food, 'indolence,' being absent from the plantation (one year added for every two hours' absence), or missing church.... In some colonies, one-third to one-half of even the most healthy indentured servants... did not live to see their freedom. In others, 80 percent... died their first year.

"...ship captains acquired would-be indentured servants from taverns and fairs, and bribed judges and debtors' prison jailers to secure prisoners who could be indentured. Political prisoners 'were sold at auction... for various terms of years, sometimes for life, as slaves.' ...a bill passed in 1618 permitted the capture of children of eight years or older to be transported as slaves to America [for terms of fourteen to sixteen years]. [Officials and judges received kickbacks] from the sale of children, so constables roamed the streets looking for children while alderman entered the homes of the poor to look for more. ...'Children were driven in flocks through the town and confined... So flagrant was the practice that people... avoided bringing children into the city for fear they might be stolen... [Stealing children for slavery] became so notorious in Scotland that the Scottish term for the practice entered the English language: "kid-nabbing."' In the colonies, mortality rates for these children often reached 90 to 95 percent within five years....

"Hundreds of thousands of... prisoners of war, dissidents, Jacobites, and Irish [were enslaved and sent to the colonies]....

"Ten thousand poor people are estimated to have been sold into slavery each year in Great Britain. Between 1609 and the early 1800s, as many as two-thirds of the white colonists are estimated to have been forced to come over as slaves."

As I recall, Howard Zinn has addressed this subject as well.

So it is flatly incorrect to refer to "indentured servitude" as only voluntary and temporary.

...That said, just because many individual stories of white slavery in America compare in horrificness to those of black slavery, does not give justification to attempt to negate or diminish the historicaly criminal nature of black slavery. 1. On average and on the whole, black slavery in America far exceeded its white equivalent as a mass hate-crime. 2. Now that both forms of slavery are (officially) in the past, whites have been granted a social status above that of blacks.

If a poor white person gets a shave and a haircut and puts on an Armani suit, they become to most observers a wealthy white person. If a poor black person does likewise, they become to many observers... nothing. They're still a "nigger."

I do not want to risk reinforcing the silly argument that originally brought up the subject of white slavery in this blog. However I also believe that this part of our story needs to be remembered. My guess as to why this bit history is omitted from our schoolings is because state education is tailored to the white supremacist social expectation. It is easier for the dominant race to be apathetic about history if they think the horrors only happened to those "Others". If whites knew that this shit had happened to them to, more of them might question the sanity and legitimacy of the whole cultural kit'n'kaboodle that grants them their power and privilege, something that the non-anti-racists don't want.

@ Q - I actually go for the more narrow idea of "middle class." And as just free fyi, the reason the term "middle class" is so broad in the US is so that Republicans can do things for the rich and try to claim to be looking out for the "middle class." Also, very few people care to admit that they're not middle class because both the rich and the poor are looked down upon. So you end up with this very broad definition that ends up not meaning much.

Just again, in terms of what even poor whites would've been able to accumulate after WW2 with govt assistance, we're not talking about wealth like being rich. Anything above what a person would owe is wealth. So, say a working class white ww2 vet bought a home in the 50s. By the time they retire, social security and medicare will fund a lot of their living costs. So by the time they die, they will have owned the home.

Even before ww2, even poor whites were able to acquire more wealth (and remember, wealth is any assets about liabilities) than poor blacks. Also, poor whites didn't face the neo-slavery that poor blacks faced. So even poor whites would have something to pass on; and in terms of accumulated wealth, every little bit counts. If all a man has to pass on to his kids are a milking cow and a pig each, well that's milk and meat that can help the kids acquire more cows and pigs and potentially land. Right? Cause money saved on buying milk and pork is money spent somewhere else like buying land.

And just to make sure you really grasp what we're talking about when it comes to wealth vs wealthy, think about the emtymology of the word. "Wealthy" describes persons with a lot of wealth. You can have some "wealth" and not be "wealthy." "Wealthy" comes from "wealth" the way someone with a lot of beauty is "beautifull." Make sense?

@ Lusten - I haven't read everything you wrote because I'm not sure how much is geared towards me. I just read through the last two posts. If there's more, please let me know.

When it comes to the brutality of indentured servitude, I think I knew that, but it's good to be reminded nonetheless. I agree with your reasoning as to why the truth isn't taught in schools. We would get much farther in terms of racial and economic justice if poor to working class whites would realized they're in the same boat as people of color. Now, it's nowhere near equal extents, but the same group of people are screwing us all!

Now, to pin down my point about indentured servitude vs slavery - not arguing about the facts you presented. At all, right? Just stressing what you said about the things that happen to a relative few not equaling the things that happened to an entire race of people. Even if indentured servitude wasn't always voluntary, slavery was never voluntary. Correct me if I'm wrong, but children born to indentured servents didn't become indentured themselves, right? I know for sure the apparatus undergirding indentured servitude wasn't near the size of that maintaining slavery.

Oh, and here I'm reminded that part of the reason for making the lives of all whites less miserable and insecure than the life of any African was that white servants and African slaves pulled off this big, impactful rebellion; and the monied that be decided it was to their advantage to give some social regard to whites in order to exploit race fidelity.

I hesitate to bring up another topic when you rightly pointed out white "slavery" has nothing to do with Macon's original post; but, oh how I wish all these white shouters and screamers at the townhalls would realize that again, the monied that be are exploiting race fidelity to their (the non-monied) own detriment.

The assertion that kids' books are 50% POC is not only a ridiculous hyperbole; it's not based in reality. As an educator and a member of the National Council of Teachers of English, I find it difficult to outfit my classroom with books that are racially and culturally diverse. Aside that issue, it's hard to find reading materials that do not harness unfortunate implications toward non-whites. I'm not alone in this dilemma.

"Having Black doctors or PoC as doctors should not be surprising to you either. "

Who said I was surprised? I was not at all surprised. You are twisting my words here. The remarks I made about PoC in kids books, TV, and in positions of authority in my life etc were all a reference to that famous "white privilege" essay, that claims whites can expect to see "people like them" in these circumstances and PoC can't. I was suggesting that this assumption is outdated. But it's interesting how much has been read into my comments!

"Not trying to brag, but just because you do or do not see something or see a few this does not mean it does not exist."

I think you are mixing me up with some other white person:) I have no idea why you are telling me this.

"Just because you see something on TV, it does not make it fact."

Hopefully the person you are actually addressing, who doesn't already know all this, is reading!

"Just stressing what you said about the things that happen to a relative few not equaling the things that happened to an entire race of people."

Huh? An entire race? Relative few?

It's funny, I've had this conversation before, and it always goes thusly:

1. Whites never experienced the evils of slavery like blacks did!(well they did actually)

2. But indentured servitude was voluntary! And short!(no it wasn't etc etc)

It was LARGELY involuntary. So yes you still win! But only marginally. The traditional idea was of indentured servitude as a voluntary appreticeship was relatively rare.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but children born to indentured servents didn't become indentured themselves, right?"

As referenced above, this was a common way of extending the terms of servitude. Women were not allowed to get pregnant. If they did they were not only punished by having their terms extended, the children were held in bondage until age 21. Few lived beyond their terms, as stated above.

"I know for sure the apparatus undergirding indentured servitude wasn't near the size of that maintaining slavery."

Well, you've shown us before how much you "know"

It's interesting to note (see above) that the majority of the hundreds of thousands of white slaves (which they would certainly be called by modern standards- lets not play semantic games) did not live to see their freedom. Black slaves were more expensive, and were therefore better cared for. After the rich invented lifetime racial slavery, this was even more crucial. White slaves on the other hand were cheaper, the ships were going back and forth anyway, the poor whites were clogging the streets of the cities after being driven off their ancestral lands, so they were often worked much harder and fed more poorly. They were expendable. After the races were split into black slaves and poor free whites, many of the whites starved and lived in wretched circumstances and were in fact pitied by the black slaves.

And this was certainly not the end of systematic exploitation of the white underclass. But I don't want to make the blog all about me!

It's funny how everyone here wants the poorer whites to see that "we're all in the same boat"

Not only have I been attacked every time I have suggested this, who would want to unite with people who are so hostile, who keep shouting offensive generalities about whites and insisting on the ultimate victim status and white admission of "damage" and "white privilege" before getting going? I know I find it a turnoff.

I have no doubt that if you randomly pulled out 100 of the latest childrens picture books (for the youngest kids) from my library at least, you would find at least 30% (the current representation in the US) and probably far far more feature non-white children. If I get a chance I will perform the experiment. I've borrowed and read many of those very books to kids so don't tell me I'm imagining it.

Also my library has an entire children's section, including books for older kids and videos and tapes and listening stations,for Spanish speakers.

I am not saying the "reforms" are finished, but the constant insistence that nothing is being done and racism is getting worse, and PoC can't find representations of their race is not true in my experience.

Also, bristling after all your accusations of my 'white tendencies' causing me to see more PoC than are really there, accusations that were made with an assurance I find offensive, I flipped through the 20 or so TV stations I get with my limited Cable account last night.

I watched a couple of scenes before moving on, and if it was a commercial just counted the commercial and moved on, and in the five minutes it took to get through all the channels I saw

- Three professional black people (historians perhaps) filmed separately in talking head style- i.e. not in a room together, discussing the history of segregation on PBS - this was the very first thing I saw, as my TV was already on PBS. They referred to a couple of white people who were shown in old photographs as they spoke.

- a movie starring a famous black actor (Will Smith?-I don't know Hollywood actors very well) and a small black boy. I noticed this movie was playing the other night as well

- an old 1960's sitcom showing 3 silly white people in some kind of jam

- a more recent sitcom, Frasier, scene with the two upscale white brothers, one scene included other people who were also white

- a commercial starring a family of whites

- a CSPN-type channel with a Black male legislator (I assume) speaking into a microphone

-a reality show in some kind of outdoor environment starring people of many races - everyone seemed to be a different race

- another commercial, mostly white people, with one person ambiguous, white or Hispanic

- a show with a white male host who apparently gets people to come on and confront other family members - the family in this case was black, and the audience was mixed, but seemed about 2/3 white

- another old sitcom, the Honeymooners, about working class whites (I went back and watched this -amazing how much more open about class and respectful it seems of the working people's problems then today's shows)

3 Asian-language channels, seemed to be all or mostly Asian actors

4 Spanish-language channels, one with a dubbed movie with white actors, the others with all or mostly Latino-appearing actors.

@no1kstate: "I agree with your reasoning as to why the truth isn't taught in schools. We would get much farther in terms of racial and economic justice if poor to working class whites would realized they're in the same boat as people of color."

Another thing that has occurred to me about that is also that if white people are constantly reminded how much better they had it (true or false) then those darker "others" then it is an easier premise to teach that those whites in "fact" were and are better than the "others." Slightly different but parallel to my earlier supposition.

Well, I would say that indentured servitude IS always voluntary (that's why I wrote it in quotes at one point). If it is involuntary then by definition it is slavery. Using the term indentured servitude for every white servant blurs the fact them some of them were really slaves. One thing is for sure: for many years "black = slave." Period. The same cannot be claimed for "white."

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but children born to indentured servents didn't become indentured themselves, right? I know for sure the apparatus undergirding indentured servitude wasn't near the size of that maintaining slavery."

Besides, some of the things I stated apply to you because I have read some of the things you have said and you appear, from your comments, to think that Black people are paranoid when I know as a matter of fact that some White people resort to covertly racist tactics. So, no we are not paranoid.

Besides, I needed to get those things off my chest anyway whether they apply to you or not.

@ Lusten - Oh, I'm fairly sure about the 2nd. British slavery alone included the US and several Caribbean islands. It was slavery that funded the Revolution, the War of 1812 and both sides of the Civil War. The apparatus had to be a bigger, stronger thing. And yes, whereas by definition, indentured servitude is always voluntary, what I did mean is that black always = slave whereas the same cannot be said for whites.

@ Isabel - You can use the singular experience of your local public library when you evidently live in a city/area heavily populated by people of color. The nationwide average for kids books is that around 3% feature children of color. Please, for heaven's sake, if you wanna have a serious discussion and not a townhall shoutdown, go read and study up on the facts.

I was focusing my observation on the "images" of people, and anyway I am not so familiar with books for older kids. I was not including older books the obvious reason that those probably would be more white.

And my library is not in a city.

The semantic discussion of slavery/servitude is ridiculous. The distinction isn't even there in early documents. Everyone was a servant. Sometimes the words were used interchangeably.

Blacks could earn their freedom too originally, and many did and even went on to own slaves. Many Indians did likewise and many also owned slaves. 2000 Black slaves accompanied them on the famous Trail of Tears.

The importance of all this discussion is that it adds much needed complexity to the usual narratives:

1. The brave Europeans risked their lives to come here to be free of oppression. They endured many hardships, and broke bread with the natives. Of course, mistakes were made and there was some exploitation and slavery but now we are all equal...

OR

2. The brutal, empire-lusting unhygienic Whites invaded the land and proceeded to kill off the peaceful native peoples: they then imported dark people who they considered their inferiors to do the hard work. The darker people built this country and the lazy, incompetent whites benefitted.

Maybe there is a more complicated story in there somewhere (and in some ways a simpler one - hint-$$$$$)

Human history is much more complicated and human nature more universal then is generally assumed in these arguments about how we got to this point. In my opinion THIS is what we (all of us) need to accept before progress can occur.

Isabel's getting kinda pathetic, isn't she? Did you see her 8/31@7:32 rant? I think she's actually lost track of how's she speaking to; she's confusing me, Macon D, and several other commenters.

Y'know, it was almost-kinda admirable the way she stuck to her convictions at first. To watch her flail and clutch at something that's not there, is almost like watching a beached whale: You do all you can for it, but in the end, it might be best to let it pass on with whatever dignity it has left.

On second thought, Isabel's more of a train wreck, isn't she? Let's just sit back and roast some marshmallows over the wreckage. Who wants s'mores? ^_^

Haha, Angel H., you are too much. But, you are necessary for the discussion. Pass the S'mores. It's funny and sad at the same time. But, Isabel venture the roundabout way of calling me uppity by using related terms (e.g. arrogant, full of my self) to derail the valid information that I presented her. Maybe it's my name that gave her reason to feel comfortable by doing so. Arrogant? No. Educated and knowledgeable of the topics presented? Yes - life and studies have taught me quite eloquently.

I'll sit back and watch the melee of those that think like her and enjoy the constant and desired wall-banging life they lead.

Many fellow blacks bought slaves as a means of buying their freedom, or they bought them and hired them (with pay) as sharecroppers. If, and when, slaves earned their freedom it was via the following:

1. Death of the owner

2. Bankruptcy of said owner

3. Emancipation granted by government

As for the usual narratives,

The first one is a revisionist history to escape the truth, which is sadly occurring in history classes (I will give you that 1/8 inch); however, the second is more valid (sadly). I understand that money plays a part in human history and nature. But, money isn't necessary to learn the basics of such a history that continues to keep us from the greatest potential f human beings.

"But, Isabel venture the roundabout way of calling me uppity by using related terms (e.g. arrogant, full of my self) "

HaHaHa I knew I'd get accused of using coded language sooner or later.

Someone can call me a bitch and all manner of insults with impunity, but I can't say she is arrogant when she insists she is right about something without being called a racist. That's what I call equality.

As far as derailing, Macon asked me to explain how I felt about white privilege, did I believe in it etc etc.

Furthermore, I keep trying to bring the conversation back to the cashier example which is quite relevant. But you are being evasive, obviously you can't defend you're insistence that it was racism.

I agree this conversation has gone south but it is YOU guys who are flailing train wrecks. You have your point of view and you are here to "educate" not to learn. You keep twisting my words, so for some reason (probably because it is slanderous to be called a racist) I feel the need to defend myself. And you've made false statements about the experience of white people that I felt it was important to correct. So don't blame me for the derailing.

Have fun kiddies (I'm sure that's code for something) I'll leave you to your games now;)

Wearyheckler, you're right about it being so toxic. It'll probably be safer to roast the marshmallows over a nuclear waste dump.

All of her bullshit must've finally rotted Isabel's brain: She's still confusing my comments with someone else's, and she actually thinks that discussing white privilege on a blog about race is derailing the conversation!

I'm not really current with all of the issues. all of you can go on discussing endlessly, but as for myself and my family (we are white) we will go on treating all people of all races as equal and deserving of human dignity.

David M. Adamsdirect bloodline descendent of the 2nd and 6th presidents of the U.S.A.

I thought the discussion was over, but D Adams's response reminds me of another post: question poc authority and knowledge.

The truth, Adams, is that unless you're intentional about it and self-monitoring, you probably don't treat everyone as equals. Studies have shown people have subconscious biases that they'll exhibit even with the best of intentions. In the case of white Americans, we've all been awashed in pro-white bias here in the US, and unless you monitor your thoughts or something like that, you exhibit pro-white bias.